ESC apparently exempt from GPL requirement for SL source

As per the blog post at http://blog.onrez.com/2007/10/18/viewer-clarifications-big-picture/ ESC for their on rez viewer are apparently exempt from the GPL requirement (that applies to any derivative works (viewers essentially) that requires them to release the basic source, I assume that the custom hud and such are not included not being part of the viewer per se but the basic viewer has to be released by them legally. I have put in a note to the GPL dev list in regards to this and would talk to any ESC member that cares to IM me but I doubt I'll get any response from either LL or ESC.

For the question, which linden if any authorized this and under what authority can they selectively pick and choose GPL licensing terms.

When you contribute code back to LL, it's with the understanding that LL may release your code to anyone under whichever license it sees fit.

ESC bought a commercial license to the SL viewer which means they get all the benefits from the open-source community delivering patches for the viewer, but it doesn't have to contribute or share any of its own enhancements back to the main SL viewer unless they choose to.

http://secondlifegrid.net/themes/linden_grid/docs/SLVcontribution_agmt.pdf

Then they need to change the statement that the source code is released under the GPL since those are two mutually exclusive concepts

They can't say the source code is released under the GPL oh except for those who we waive the GPL for and sell commercial licenses to, anyone will tell you that and and I can say that quite confidently even though I'm not a lawyer.

Incoming I agree that you essentially give LL any right they want with what you give them but the GPL part is the source code outgoing from LL to whoever downloads and views it.

Have to admit, this sounds very broken. Not that ESC shouldn't be able to have a commercial license to develop closed-source viewers, but that LL chose the GPL of all things under which to release the source. What could they have been thinking? Even the wiki is released under Creative Commons, so they seem to know better.

Oddly enough according to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html, only LL is empowered to act against people who violate the GPL on their product, and I doubt anyone's going to go through the trouble that LL by allowing this violation has voided the license in the courts and all LL essentially gets off scott free with this. Though I guess the fact that ESC knows this and essentially in their blog applauds that they can get away with this proves that tye're a bunch of wankers (I'm American but British idioms work too) who have no problem actively screwing everyone else.

wow. this is really something. The comments on the onrez blog post (from the original author of the post) confirm what you are saying, Gordon.
/me goes to check the sldev mailing list and his computer explodes.

I just posted something about this on there, though I'm not sure if it's gone through to everyone yet.

It wouldn't surprise me though if I get banned or at least suspended for saying anything bad about one of LL's golden calf's (them and Ansche Chung) since I'm sure that they've bought at least a few linden's loyalties.

Actually, this is explained quite well on the open source wiki.

A license is an _agreement between people_ - it's not a property of a piece of software. There is no such thing as "making a program GPL". I can license it to someone else under the terms of the GPL, if I want to. But that does not change the nature of the program, only my agreement with the humans using it.

If I write a program, I can license it to any number of people under the GPL, and to any number of people under other licenses too. The GPL's rules don't restrict me from doing that, because the code isn't licensed to me under the GPL - it's owned by me via author's copyright.

Now, if somebody else does contribute to my GPL program, then I don't have the copyright on their code, so I have to accept the GPL at that point. But.. when you contribute code to Linden Labs, you have to sign an additional release form which essentially says that you aren't just putting in the code under the GPL, you're actually allowing Linden Labs to take ownership of it.

If ESC had copied, say, Nicholaz's viewer or one of the other open source modified viewers, then they might have violated the GPL. And, moreover, they could not do this even with Nicholaz's permission. Nicholaz could not legally give permission - because he _also_ only has the code under the GPL, and it limits him from doing that. But LL do _not_ have the standard Second Life code under the GPL, and if they choose to license it to ESC some other way, they can. The fact that the public only have access ot the code under the GPL license, doesn't make the GPL license an intrinsic property of the Second Life code.

<edited out>...essentially inventing fire after other people did most of the work and leaving the rest of us in the dark while warming themselves (to the tune of hundreds of thousands of US dollars)

I would say boycott onrez and other ESC ventures but they wouldn't care they could shut those down today and it wouldn't effect their bottom line or hurt htem in anyway I assume that the only reason that those still exist that they're pet projects or like Snapzilla were absorbed when they bought the souls of people like C.M. (Can't name names but go to Snapzilla and you'll see who easily enough.

Um, I'm really baffled by this statement. How are the rest of us "in the dark" now? Do you really think that OnRez was a major factor in ESC landing the CSI contract, as opposed to the multiple island builds and the on-show machinima?

No, nor do I really care about that, however the builder was a huge overhaul of the whole user interface aspect of the viewer, I don't know if they changed anything else since they won't release any of the code but the viewer not the CSI contract was what I was and have been referencing.

Yeah, I can see that if LL removed any source code that they obtained under GPL, and removed any reference to the Gnu language from the source files, then they could license their source to ESC under some other arrangement while at the same time licensing it to the public under the GPL. But if either of those conditions doesn't hold, seems to me somebody in LL's Legal Department is gonna be very busy one day soon. No idea where that would leave ESC, though.

I wish I had the time and money to take them up on that and a million other legal irregularities with their TOS and other "contracts" that they're making with residents.

LL didn't obtain any source code under GPL. On the Open Source wiki, there is a Contributon Agreement, which you have to sign and fax to Linden Labs if you want to allow your modification to become a part of the official viewer. It says that you agree to make Linden Labs a joint owner of your code, and thus the GPL is irrelevant to LL since they own the code.

Ok, but I don't understand how ESC made "hundreds or thousands of dollars" from the OnRez viewer!?

FIC

I'm not sure what the problem is here. Other software companies also offer their products under both GPL and commercial licenses. The different licenses offer different rights and have different requirements, and the user chooses the one that best fits their needs.

As an example, here is the MySQL page discussing their GPL:
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/opensource-license.html

In the second paragraph it says: "Please note that the General Public License can be restrictive, so if it doesn't meet your needs, you are better served by our Commercial License." Basically, if you want to use MySQL but not GPL your app, you have the option to pay MySQL for the right to do that.

So it would appear that LL has simply opted to license the client to ESC under different terms. There is nothing wrong or even unusual about it.

Pretty simple when you have a company that stands to earn Linden Lab money, they will give you preferential treatment.

Thats all it ever was.

Cant say I blame LL.

The annoying thing is the denying that goes on about it.

Gordon, you've obviously got a legitimate question on how licensing works, but I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd refrain from name calling and from making assumptions and accusations. All you accomplish by such behavior is to make yourself look childish and angry instead of genuinely concerned. Please act with a bit more maturity from now on, and I'll be happy to find you whatever answers I can. Thanks.

As I have very little if any expertise on this subject, I've E-mailed the head of our software team to alert him to this thread. Being that it's the weekend, I don't know how soon I'll get a response, but either he or I will respond with some better information for you ASAP. Fair enough?

In the interim, I'll provide the best common sense answer I can. And that is to say that Yumi's and Ava's responses here have been entirely correct. Agreements are between people; they are not properties of software. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason that two or more different types of agreements could not exist simultaneously regarding the same program. They can and they do. This is really nothing unusual.

I'd encourage you to think about all this in practical terms. ESC is more than generous when it comes to contributing to the open source effort (much more than you know), but any company also deserves to be able to benefit commercially from certain of its own proprietary additions that are directly designed for its specific business. In other words, there has to be a fair balance in place for all stake holders. I'm sure you can understand that. While many things can and always will be totally open, not everything can be or should be.

Whether you agree or disagree with anything I've said here, I will ask once again that you respond with maturity and dignity. Lay off the name calling. Don't make accusations or pretend that you have any insight into the motivations of people you've never met. Again, you just make yourself look silly when you do that, and I'm sure that's not what you want.



Collette I think you'd do well not to refer to it as "preferential treatment" or to accuse people of making "denials". It's a commercial license, plain and simple. You could get one too if you want. Anyone could. It's nothing unusual, and I really don't see why anyone could possibly find reason to be upset about it (except of course the chronic complainers who are always upset about whatever happens to cross their field of view, as we've discussed before).

I'd encourage you to read the licensing FAQ page on the SL wiki. It states quite clearly that several different types of licenses exist for the viewer, including commercial licenses.



Anyway, as I said, I'm really not an expert on this subject. I'm just speaking off the cuff here. As soon as I can get more educated answers to the legitimate questions that have been asked, I'll post them.

The SLdev list went through the debate on Wednesday already as well:

https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/2007-November/006473.html (Thread start)

https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/2007-November/006487.html (Forseti Svarog's response)

I'm not sure why anyone would want ESC's code, from all reports it's a crashy piece of crap. Better the souce *not* get out.

Look .. This is not some huge secret of SL history.

Some of the Electric Sheep founders and some of the Lindens are buds .. stop insulting my intelligence.

Yes theres been a professional corporate style denial for years. In fact your post frankly reeks of it. I imagine its unconscious by now.

---------------------------

You are VERY correct however - in that ANYONE could get a corporate license if they follow the process.

Further Anyone who came to LL with a legit business deal is going to get preferential treatment.

Possibly even better treatment than Electric sheep gets, since ESC doesn't need coddled or shown how SL works.

---------------------------

For the record I'm not upset about the preferential treatment, I understand it. I've been involved in Corporate America before. I've seen sweetheart deals that dwarf any of this nickel and dime LL/ESC stuff.

What reports are those? I've been using it for months now. It crashes no more or less often than LL's viewer. In fact, it's pretty much the same thing under the hood right now, just reskinned, and with a few add-ons.

People, please tell me. Is the purpose of this thread actually to have a useful discussion, or is it just a "make up whatever you want to bash ESC" fest? If it's the latter, I'd really like to know so I can stop wasting my time here. If it's the former, I'd like to help clear things up. Anyone care to step up and tell me which it is?

No, though I don't appreciate ESC's rep talking down to me like I"m some sort of child, and I don't plan on responding to the above post by him for that reason, but essentially no this thread was not initially not an ESC bashing thread.